Minimum Fill

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Rimfire McNutjob
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:51 pm
Location: Sanford, FL.

Minimum Fill

Post by Rimfire McNutjob »

What are the opinions on the minimum case fill one should feel comfortable with? Specifically, I'm looking at the .45 Colt but I think this is generally applicable to most straight walled pistol cartridges. Is it 60%, 45%, or what is generally acceptable. I'm looking at lower velocity loads and without any Trail Boss to be had, the case fills are looking pretty light.
... I love poetry, long walks on the beach, and poking dead things with a stick.
User avatar
JimT
Shootist
Posts: 5468
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:04 pm

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by JimT »

That's something I have never once considered, thought of or worried about.
No offense. It just never has been an issue.
User avatar
Rimfire McNutjob
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:51 pm
Location: Sanford, FL.

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by Rimfire McNutjob »

Yeah, I know, it'll still go bang. I guess I've just read too much about a loss of consistency with really low fills. I've read of the worry of detonations but I think that mostly with low fills in something like a 45-70 with slow burning powders and not necessarily applicable in the pistol cartridge range.

But that begs the question about Trail Boss or Tin Star. Why the lower energy content, bulky high volume powder ... unless it was to mimic the volume and metering of black powder in the likes of the 38-40 and 44-40.

I guess with a fast burning, high density powder like TiteGroup there's also the chance of a double charge going undetected. Something where a charge is about 22% of case capacity, etc.
... I love poetry, long walks on the beach, and poking dead things with a stick.
User avatar
Griff
Posting leader...
Posts: 20803
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: OH MY GAWD they installed a STOP light!!!

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by Griff »

JimT wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 9:32 pmThat's something I have never once considered, thought of or worried about.
No offense. It just never has been an issue.
Likewise. Except in the case of BP loads...
Griff,
SASS/CMSA #93
NRA Patron
GUSA #93

There is a fine line between hobby & obsession!
AND... I'm over it!!
No I ain't ready, but let's do it anyway!
User avatar
earlmck
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3423
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:10 am
Location: pert-neer middle of Oregon

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by earlmck »

I feel much more comfortable with a fill of 60% or thereabouts so a double charge will be obvious. I do plenty of charges that do not make that, but my comfort level is lower and therefore I look down in each case extra hard before stuffing in a bullet. The powders I use for those low-density loads are generally w231 or W244 and they give pretty consistent velocities with those low-density loads 'cause being ball powders they throw so uniformly. Substituting Red Dot which is poofier will make a higher density load but probably not as consistent in the velocity department because it doesn't throw nearly as well from my measure. I have a bunch of TrailBoss but don't get the use out of it that I expected: I keep getting disappointed 'cause I'm after more velocity then a full case of TB gives me out of pistol cartridges, but have been real happy with it when making "plinking" loads using modern rifle cartridges. I'm sure it's just the ticket for cowboy action loads, but I don't shoot cowboy action.

I hadn't thought of a minimum density. I just looked at the lowest density load I use in QuickLoad and it calculates my density for W231 and the old 230 grain 45 bullet in the 454 Casull case at about 35%. When I inspect under my good light looking for both double-charged and uncharged cases this load is not hard to see.

The other area where I pay full attention to fill level is making up levergun loads where the crimp is not going to be very impressive -- which describes just about all my 38/40 loads and a few others. Here I like a 105% density load so the powder is somewhat compressed and the bullet will not be allowed to scoot deeper into the case during it's trip through the magazine and into the chamber. I am not bashful about using a duplex load if I need it to get that 105% load density (which I do for low to medium power loads in the 38/40 but use straight RL-7 for a full power load).

So yes, I consider fill level when making up loads, but had never thought of a "minimum" density... Good question Rimfire.
The greatest patriot...
is he who heals the most gullies.
Patrick Henry
User avatar
JimT
Shootist
Posts: 5468
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:04 pm

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by JimT »

In nearly 70 years of shooting I have heard about "powder position" and "detonations" etc. etc. I have never had an accuracy problem with light powder charges in large sixgun cartridges. I don't know about rifles. I do not believe you can carry what works in rifles to sixguns or from sixguns to rifles ... not for everything.

The "small powder charge detonation theory" started back in the latter half of the last century. Bullseye shooters blew up some nice S&W .38/.357 sixguns with 2.7 gr. of Bullseye and the 148 gr. wadcutter. The theory was that somehow the small powder charge created some kind of detonation.

WHAT NO ONE EVER CONSIDERED WAS PERHAPS THE RELOADER SCREWED UP SOMEHOW!

All kinds of ideas were proposed. No one was ever able to replicate the blowups with that small of powder charge in laboratory, but never mind that. It was a good idea and it has stuck around to this day.

Hercules Powder Co. did their best to blow a S&W .38 Special with 2.7 gr. of Bullseye and a 148 gr. wadcutter. They went so far as to rig a S&W sixgun with a dynamite detonator to detonate the powder charge. What they proved was that there is not enough chemical energy contained in that small of a powder charge to wreck a S&W sixgun - WHEN THE BULLET WAS SEATED AT THE PROPER DEPTH. They also included pressure data showing how drastically the pressures rose if the bullet was seated deeper than flush. But even that did not detract those who loved their detonation theory. Hercules sent out thousands of full color reports with data photos of their tests. It did not stop the rumors, even to this day.

Fast forward to CAS. Light charges became the thing! And wonder of wonders, some guns were blowing up! Gotta be detonation, right? One shooter who blew up 3 .44's in CAS using a 190 gr. bullet and light charges of Bullseye was convinced of detonation until .. after his 3rd blowup he one day weighed some of his loaded ammo and found a few that weighed 190 grains more than they should have. Pulling the loads he found TWO BULLETS seated in the case, highly compressing the small charge of Bullseye.

He traced it back to his loader's seating die. Lube from the cast bullets built up enough in the seating die to hold a bullet, pulling it up when the case went to the crimping stage. Thinking he forgot to add a bullet during the long reloading run he put another bullet into the case, re-seated it ... along with the bullet stuck up inside the die ... and went on. He checked all his ammo and found several others among them.

Published in one of the major gun magazines about 20 years ago, it made some difference as old handloaders like myself can get complacent and screw up IF WE DO NOT MAINTAIN GOOD SAFE RELOADING HABITS. Yes. We are very capable of making serious errors. But we hate like aitch ee double ell to admit it.

While all of the above was going on, powders like Trailboss that take up quite a bit of the internal space were developed to help us control our screwups. That's not a bad thing.

I have never felt the need to switch from my old favorite powders like Bullseye and Unique. But .. I ALWAYS DOUBLE CHECK EVERY POWDER CHARGE AND HAVE FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS OR MORE. And I use a single stage press just because I am no longer in a hurry and I like the control of each stage of reloading. That's my preference. I am not saying everyone should do this.

What I am saying is watch the entire process .. don't get distracted ... make good quality ammo THE goal.
User avatar
COSteve
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:03 pm

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by COSteve »

A lot depends upon the powder you are using. TiteGroup is specifically formulated for light loads with minimum case fills. For instance, in .45 acp with a 200grn bullet, Hodgdon says starting is 4.8grns and max is 5.4grns. That's very little powder in that case.
Steve
Retired and Living the Good Life
No Matter Where You Go, There You Are
User avatar
Rimfire McNutjob
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:51 pm
Location: Sanford, FL.

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by Rimfire McNutjob »

Though I've loaded pistol rounds such as .380 ACP, .38 Special, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP ... I've never loaded .45 Colt. When I look down in that case, it's downright cavernous compared to the space in the other's once the bullet is seated. It just seemed prudent to ask since it's a new cartridge for me and it's not really like the others I've loaded for in the ... well, not so recent past.

I'll start out single stage since I have the #20 shell holder but not the #20 shell plate yet. Maybe 231 or N320.
... I love poetry, long walks on the beach, and poking dead things with a stick.
User avatar
JimT
Shootist
Posts: 5468
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:04 pm

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by JimT »

I have had decent accuracy with 700-X
IMG_0413.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
COSteve
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:03 pm

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by COSteve »

FWIW, I load .45 Colt using Unique, both 200grn and 250grn bullets and Alliant shows 7.8grns of Unique with a 250grn Speer DCHP (Do Not Reduce). That leaves the case pretty empty looking. Even their 250grn Speer LSWC at a max of 9.5grns of Unique isn't a case filler.
Steve
Retired and Living the Good Life
No Matter Where You Go, There You Are
User avatar
Griff
Posting leader...
Posts: 20803
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: OH MY GAWD they installed a STOP light!!!

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by Griff »

My favorite 45 Colt load is 6.0 grains of RedDot behind a .452" 200 LRFN with a WLP primer in just about any case. In my 6 45 Colt rifles it gives a range of velocities, from the mid-700s to just over 1,000 fps in the 18-½" 1873. QuickLoad calculates this to give 1139fps from a 20" bbl @ 11,244psi. And gives load density of 40.1%. As for the discrepancy between their calculated fps & my actual, I suspect its due to distance to the chronograph. The below chart is of my 2nd favorite load:
Image
Griff,
SASS/CMSA #93
NRA Patron
GUSA #93

There is a fine line between hobby & obsession!
AND... I'm over it!!
No I ain't ready, but let's do it anyway!
User avatar
Rimfire McNutjob
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:51 pm
Location: Sanford, FL.

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by Rimfire McNutjob »

COSteve wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 11:18 am FWIW, I load .45 Colt using Unique, both 200grn and 250grn bullets and Alliant shows 7.8grns of Unique with a 250grn Speer DCHP (Do Not Reduce). That leaves the case pretty empty looking. Even their 250grn Speer LSWC at a max of 9.5grns of Unique isn't a case filler.
Yeah, so I think that's what concerns me ... the Do Not Reduce part. Clearly there is a problem going too far under sometimes. I'm curious as to what drives that ... unless it's as simple as a bullet getting stuck in the barrel.
... I love poetry, long walks on the beach, and poking dead things with a stick.
User avatar
JimT
Shootist
Posts: 5468
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:04 pm

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by JimT »

Rimfire McNutjob wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 2:58 pm .... as simple as a bullet getting stuck in the barrel.
Just for fun one day I loaded extremely light loads of Bullseye under a 260 gr. cast bullet in the .45 Colt and fired it straight up outside the door of my shop. I wanted to get a bullet to go up no higher than about 15 or 20 feet. The first shot went out of sight but fairly slow so I knew it wasn't going too high. I stepped back into the doorway and waited a short bit for the bullet to come back down. I loaded another with less powder and stepped out and fired it straight up and it stopped in the barrel ... which made it necessary to go into the shop again, pull the cylinder out and shove the bullet out of the barrel. I repeated this too much and too little gave several times and finally fired one that went up a bit higher than the roof of my shop. I was able to catch it in my hat as it fell, spinning wobbly-like.

Since then I have done that a few times with other calibers, just for the heck of it.

I also fired some of the light load at an ace of spades taped to a 2x4. The Keith bullets only penetrated about 3/4 the length of the nose and stuck in the wood. Several bullet landed on the bases of previously fired bullets. Shooting about 15 feet. With that light of loads you do have to be careful of the bullets bouncing back at you. :D
User avatar
marlinman93
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6432
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:40 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by marlinman93 »

I've never considered minimum fill with smokeless powders. It's different for every powder, and not something to contemplate. More important is minimum charge, not based on fill, but based on sealing the chamber from blowback.
Pre WWI Marlins and Singleshot rifles!
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
User avatar
Rimfire McNutjob
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:51 pm
Location: Sanford, FL.

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by Rimfire McNutjob »

Griff wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 2:04 pm My favorite 45 Colt load is 6.0 grains of RedDot behind a .452" 200 LRFN with a WLP primer in just about any case ...
I'm going to look for 675 to 725 with a 280 grain WFN from a 3-1/2" barrel. But now I wish I had a bottle of Red Dot lying about.

Alliant has really locked up tight in the market lately. I'm betting they may have diverted capacity to refilling large government orders and so we don't get any spillover in the handloading market these days. Just another crunch ... maybe the 3rd one in the last 20 years?

I've got a good bit of stuff laid up, just nothing from Alliant faster than Unique.
... I love poetry, long walks on the beach, and poking dead things with a stick.
User avatar
Rimfire McNutjob
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:51 pm
Location: Sanford, FL.

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by Rimfire McNutjob »

marlinman93 wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 11:14 pm I've never considered minimum fill with smokeless powders. It's different for every powder, and not something to contemplate. More important is minimum charge, not based on fill, but based on sealing the chamber from blowback.
Ah, at least enough to expand the brass to seal the chamber. That definitely makes sense.
... I love poetry, long walks on the beach, and poking dead things with a stick.
User avatar
Ray
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2823
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:45 am

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by Ray »

marlinman93 wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 11:14 pm I've never considered minimum fill with smokeless powders. It's different for every powder, and not something to contemplate. More important is minimum charge, not based on fill, but based on sealing the chamber from blowback.
I used to be concerned about this until I realized that 70%+ of factory handgun loads soot the outside of the cases in my guns. I contemplated the harm/negatives and I concluded that since I was going to have to clean the guns anyway, the blowback was never a problem.
m.A.g.a. !
User avatar
Ray
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2823
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:45 am

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by Ray »

Earl, tell us more about this 244 powder. Back when powders of any name or number became scarce, I bought four pounds of 244 at a bargain price but it predates all of my manuals.
IMG_20230509_053620167~2.jpg
An example of a 244 load for a .45 colt from a trustworthy online database.....
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
m.A.g.a. !
User avatar
Scott Tschirhart
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3840
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:56 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by Scott Tschirhart »

I used to be concerned about light charges in the .38 because I read about some guns blowing up. I intentionally did not use Bullseye for light loads for that reason.

But I loaded a great deal of Bullseye in the .45 ACP. Never had a concern, probably because I never heard of a problem with the .45 ACP.

These days I shoot mostly the same loads all the time. 8 gr of Unique looks like not much in that big .45 Colt case, but that 255 gr bullet takes up quite a bit of space too. I’ve shot enough of this particular load that I simply don’t worry about it.
User avatar
JimT
Shootist
Posts: 5468
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:04 pm

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by JimT »

Pull a factory Remington or Winchester .45 Colt and look at the dinky powder charge the factories use. They don't seem concerned and been doing it for longer than most of us have been alive.
User avatar
Griff
Posting leader...
Posts: 20803
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: OH MY GAWD they installed a STOP light!!!

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by Griff »

You'll know if you're ever on the verge of too light when you do the following test: hold the gun (loaded) in the vertical position, muzzle down, bring level and fire across a chronograph. Note velocity, now do the opposite; hold gun in the vertical (muzzle up) for a second before bringing the gun level and firing. Note and compare the two velocities. Most any less than full case charge will show a difference, but borderline light charges will have significant changes. I once loaded what I thought would be a legal load (minimum velocity), only to have it initially fail. After the 1st round failed the tester put my rifle muzzle up, and fired a subsequent 5 rounds for the test and all passed. I've not loaded that close to the minimum since! It's not a good feeling to be disqualified before firing a shot! Let alone losing your entry fee!
Griff,
SASS/CMSA #93
NRA Patron
GUSA #93

There is a fine line between hobby & obsession!
AND... I'm over it!!
No I ain't ready, but let's do it anyway!
User avatar
JimT
Shootist
Posts: 5468
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:04 pm

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by JimT »

Griff wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 9:03 am You'll know if you're ever on the verge of too light when you do the following test: hold the gun (loaded) in the vertical position, muzzle down, bring level and fire across a chronograph. Note velocity, now do the opposite; hold gun in the vertical (muzzle up) for a second before bringing the gun level and firing. Note and compare the two velocities. Most any less than full case charge will show a difference, but borderline light charges will have significant changes. I once loaded what I thought would be a legal load (minimum velocity), only to have it initially fail. After the 1st round failed the tester put my rifle muzzle up, and fired a subsequent 5 rounds for the test and all passed. I've not loaded that close to the minimum since! It's not a good feeling to be disqualified before firing a shot! Let alone losing your entry fee!
Good point. Thanks for sharing it.
For myself, I never shot CAS to win, even though I won a few. I shot for the practice of shooting under pressure and always used at least full factory power level loads.
User avatar
marlinman93
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6432
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:40 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by marlinman93 »

Ray wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 11:58 pm
marlinman93 wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 11:14 pm I've never considered minimum fill with smokeless powders. It's different for every powder, and not something to contemplate. More important is minimum charge, not based on fill, but based on sealing the chamber from blowback.
I used to be concerned about this until I realized that 70%+ of factory handgun loads soot the outside of the cases in my guns. I contemplated the harm/negatives and I concluded that since I was going to have to clean the guns anyway, the blowback was never a problem.
Blackening outside the case does mean it's not fully fire forming, but doesn't mean it's getting enough blowback to cause any getting to the shooter's face and eyes. But I have seen instances where guys were trying to get extremely light loads to lessen recoil, and got debris back in their face from too little pressure. It's just something to look out for if you're developing squib loads for whatever reason.
Pre WWI Marlins and Singleshot rifles!
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
User avatar
earlmck
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3423
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:10 am
Location: pert-neer middle of Oregon

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by earlmck »

Ray wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 5:41 am Earl, tell us more about this 244 powder. Back when powders of any name or number became scarce, I bought four pounds of 244 at a bargain price but it predates all of my manuals.
I'd bet it post dates your manuals -- it is one of Winchester's newer powders. I bought a jug when I was running low on W231 as a pert-near direct replacement. And I seem to be using pretty much the same old loads I was using with the 231. It is supposed to have copper-cleaning additive which is wasted on me: haven't shot a copper-jacketed bullet out of a handgun in some years.
The greatest patriot...
is he who heals the most gullies.
Patrick Henry
User avatar
Ray
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2823
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:45 am

Re: Minimum Fill

Post by Ray »

"postdate".....duh !.....that's a bidenish gaff that I cannot blame on autocorrect ! :oops:

Ray, shaking hands with empty space.....
m.A.g.a. !
Post Reply